Thursday, October 11, 2007

Lets Blame Sex!

It's about time, I think, for people to stop using sexuality as an excuse. For anything. No more "I'm bi so I need to be in an open relationship. No more, "I'm straight, so seeing homosexuals kissing disgusts me" or "he's gay, so he's a bit misogynistic" or "since e utilizes genderless pronouns, e's probably trans" or "she's switching up the D/s roles in her relationship because she's outgrowing BDSM." No more "e is gay so e's clingy" or "e's straight so e's really possessive" as acceptable unexamined assertion, no more letting "I can't help myself because I'm an alpha blah blah blargh" fly. At best, some of those can be cases of "in addition," but there isn't one wherein the "so"/"because" rings true. Furthermore, that excusing does a disservice to individuality, freewill, and to the entire legal and social struggle for acceptance that having kinks, hobbies, and interests not shared by one's neighbor does not imply you are mentally ill.

By positioning sexuality as entirely dependent, as locking into a specific set of tropes, sexuality is indeed made into a psychological (and sociological) deficit. The removal of freewill and difference is to implicate psychological deficit, to anyone who accepts that you can neither "turn your brain off" or "think with [insert not-brain bodypart here]." If we posit that everyone is equally sane and competent, then it must follow that they are allowed their pleasures to an similar degree, so long as they are doing so without violating or excluding anyone else's presumed sanity, equality, or competence.

To explicate, a simple scene: the public kiss. If you don't think anyone should be kissing publicly, well, there you go. If you have no problem with two people of a similar inclination to your own engaging publicly in a kiss, how can you be against or find disgusting a similar activity amongst those (sane, competent, and equal) not swinging your way? To not be turned on, is perhaps understandable, but to be disgusted? In much the way that a non-pedophile can functionally not be disgusted with two children kissing, a straight individual ought to be capable of weathering witnessing a homosexual kiss, and a homosexual, a het one. Not being attracted to people of a certain skintone, a specific style or bodytype should not lead one to be disgusted by something as simple as their kissing.

What I generally find this disgust to imply, is that someone's voyeuristic vicarious thrills are getting the better of them, leading to repression and fear. The disgust appears to be nothing more than the knotted stomach of the nervous or afraid. If entirely cold to it, there would be no impetus for disgust. If finding pleasure in the witnessing – good for you, pleasure is fun. If they are in fact, disgusting, that is, if they are deliberately in an unhygienic state, open sores and six weeks of unwashed flesh, or engaging in a kiss which is implicitly or explicitly violating the abovementioned statutes of sanity, equality, and competency, by all means, be disgusted… but do not place the excuse or reasoning on your – or their – sexuality.

It's all about acknowledging and respecting everyone else's sanity and competency, which brings me to the other incredibly popular – and oft-unexamined – assertion of sexuality guiding or preempting individual free choice: the closed relationship. The most common form of the closed sexual relationship would, presumably, be monogamy – even if statistics belie optimism here (or, optimism defies statistics, depending on what you're optimistic about) – and the idea that your sexuality prevents you from adhering to the contracted matters regarding and defining your particular closed relationship, monogamous or group, is not only ridiculous, but is in direct violation of the acknowledgement and recognition of equality in parties, as well as competency and sanity of all involved, including yourself.

Will abiding the contract make you happy? No more or less assuredly than abiding any contract, and of course, one is only as beholden to an interpersonal or sexual contract as one is to any other. (It is the currency of adherence, of trust, that is at stake, and nowhere involved is any magickal influential forces directing you towards honoring or circumventing that contract.) But, it is unbelievable that your sexuality has necessitated the violation of contract, nor is it a lack of strong will, but indeed a demonstration of determination and freewill in full effect. Unlike the instance of a kiss-you're-not-into resulting in nausea, violations of a sexual/interpersonal contract are specifically a matter of conscious choice. Your non-brain bodypart of choice did not make the decision for you, nor did your sexuality necessitate the choice, and you certainly knew what you were doing unless otherwise impaired by a physical reduction of competency.

It may, in life, be easier to claim temporary incompetency, to claim reflex necessity on par with holding your breath until you pass out and start breathing despite your attempt, but it does your ego better, and is far more honest, to admit a conscious decision and it's good for ego-inflation, yours and anybody else's that happens to be involved.

No comments:

Site Meter